Would you support a rolling ace fund as described below:

Let's assume the schedule plays out roughly the same as this year. We'd start with Osky. If nobody aced then the ace fund would roll to the next tournament, let's say Amana. If somebody did ace at Osky then it would start over at Amana. As soon as there is a tournament without an actual ace then there will always be a rolling fund because it would only pay half from then on. Let's jump forward to mid-summer, say there's about $500 rolling into Colfax and 3 people ace. The fund would be split equally into 4 parts, 3 player shares and one share that rolls forward. The idea is that as it grows it could be something that would draw people or give incentive to travel. Now, there's 2 ways to handle the end of the year. Either it could just roll into the following year, or it could be used to sponsor some sort of year end tournament.

There would be a lot of details to work out, such as working with all participating TDs, having a uniform price, making sure it's either mandatory or voluntary all the way through, and of course physically moving the money from tournament to tournament. I feel strongly that I can make this work and work well.

I'd like to see it done only for Iowa Tour events. That way the coordinator of the IA Tour could administer the fund at each event, be the caretaker of the money - rather than have to put the burden on each individual TD to collect, and when it doesn't get hit getting the dough to the next TD.

Having it for IT only would also create more incentive to hit those specific events - rather than just have it up for grabs every weekend. I'd like to see all the IT events have something that sets them apart from the rest - like Claring does for the women at GVCCC, the sweet player packs for ALL and added booty at Atlantic, etc....this would be a good addition to beef up the IT. We need things that set these events apart from all the others. This would be one of those things.

I love Arango's idea to just put the money back into the payouts instead of throwing a 100' straight shot and that (usually rec) player walking away with way more cash than the top Open player at most tourneys.

The Donator wrote:I love Arango's idea to just put the money back into the payouts instead of throwing a 100' straight shot and that (usually rec) player walking away with way more cash than the top Open player at most tourneys.

Id like that. TD's would have to keep track of what divisions the money came from to be fair though. But Jay is spot on with it being way too difficult to keep that money going between TD's. Maybe Fausch would get in on more ace funds with Lindsels idea. I hate people getting huge paydays because they laid up from 150 out.

GDL17921 wrote:I'd like to see it done only for Iowa Tour events. That way the coordinator of the IA Tour could administer the fund at each event, be the caretaker of the money - rather than have to put the burden on each individual TD to collect, and when it doesn't get hit getting the dough to the next TD.

Having it for IT only would also create more incentive to hit those specific events - rather than just have it up for grabs every weekend. I'd like to see all the IT events have something that sets them apart from the rest - like Claring does for the women at GVCCC, the sweet player packs for ALL and added booty at Atlantic, etc....this would be a good addition to beef up the IT. We need things that set these events apart from all the others. This would be one of those things.

There are a few things that would have to be put in place. The ace fund would have to be the same across all events. Also If the ace is hit. The player would get the money that was collected that day, that day. The rolling money from previous events would get mailed to the player. That way it could be taken care of if I was not at the event. The TD would just have to get the address of said player.

I was gonna bring up the Iowa Tour. The only thing I don't like about the Iowa Tour schedule (at least this year) is how there are big gaps and then bunches of tournaments. However, there are a ton of advantages to using the tour and I'm certainly not against it. Kurt, let's talk and make this happen. I'd like to work on the schedule with you and hear how things are going.

One thing that will never happen is adding the ace fund back into the payout. The best reason for the throw off is to allow the TD time to get payouts figured out. The absolute worst thing that could happen is giving them more work and less time to do it.

BTW, who's voting no and why? I seriously want to know. If you don't want to post here send me a message. I completely agree with Jay about adding some spice to the Iowa Tour and just some of the smaller tournaments in general. I envision getting this thing up around $1000 occasionally.

So this is all just to pimp the Iowa Tour and it's major vendor(s)? If it decreases the saturation with tournies I get it....to a point. It is very unfortunate that "time" is the only reason preventing a 100' layup giving some hack hundreds of dollars each weekend. Apparently that will never be a solution, and that is beyond sad for many reasons.

I don't give two hoots about this topic, but I fully agree with and like this ......

I like what has happened at the last couple tournaments I have attended when an ace hasn't been hit. Instead of rewarding just one person during the ace throw-off, the two or three closest are rewarded. IMHO, if you don't hit an ace during the actual tournament rounds, you shouldn't be rewarded with the entire amount just because you laid an approach shot next to the pole during the throw-off. I thought the distance (although short) was great for the ace throw-off. I have participated in too many throw-offs where I thought one-fourth of those throwing had almost no chance of putting something close. I felt like everybody had an opportunity to win part of the ace fund during the Newton throw-off

"I'm not impressed with aces of any kind. 95% of the time, they're just bad shots that got lucky and happened to hit the chains. Otherwise, they'd have sailed 50' past the hole." ~ Cydisc

don't freak out, just wanted to say alittle, bout this..... the comment, about when there are no aces, a throw off (CTP) gets the cheddar... and therefore might, make more $$ than a cashing pro. They are correct, this is no good , IMO, In any given tournament, maybe having a set amount for each ace, would work... Example Ia. tour events $100 and all other events ( smaller) $50. and in case of NO aces in that event, the throw off would be for only half of that event ace pot, and top three splitting the kitty, you could even go one step further and pay cash to pro players, and plastic to ams. ( during CTP only)